Agreed. Making someone watch something is an unusual punishment.However, I suspect you could legally sentence him to community service, which is not unusual at all, and make him produce a two-hour documentary on the making of the Star Wars Holiday Special, plus an extra hour's worth of inane "special features" for the DVD. Since he'd be producing something, it would technically be a service to the public and thus I imagine it would probably fall under standard community service guidelines, provided some s

People are more interested in how we're going to punish wikileaks than the US's little wars. Feel free to scream your protest against the Iraq war from the roof tops, I don't think anyone really gives a crap anymore.

It would seem that "military" or "police" are people called to use "force" - which is when law, diplomacy, deal-making, arm-twisting, etc are no longer options, for whatever reason, by whatever side. As such, once everyone has gone down that path, applying "law" as a rule for choosing courses of action is, well, after the moment for that has passed.

Although there are "laws" in almost every activity - even among some criminal goups.

Presumably he was thinking his principles and moral compass meant doing what's right meant more to him than any personal losses he may suffer as a result. It's a shame there aren't more people like him, war would be a thing of the past if soldiers had the guts to follow their own moral compass.

Most of those are article 134, "General Article", which could mean anything. I suppose most of the people found guilty under that suffer nothing more than a dishonorable discharge. Except for one charge of aiding the enemy, the others are failure to obey orders, which also normally do not have such a hard punishment.

Yet he deserves it more. Libby's commuted sentence was nepotism or corruption. Commuting Manning's sentence would send a signal that the US still cares about truth and freedom, instead of merely power and control.

Manning, (if guilty) committed his crimes to expose the truth and reveal hypocrisy in the government.

Manning committed his crime as retaliation for being fired over his sexual orientation. You can try to label him as some kind of martyr of freedom, but that's simply not the case, whether you agree with his actions or not.

In October, the Pentagon concluded that the leak "did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods", and that furthermore "there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak."

So do you refuse to negotiate with terrorists holding a building full of people hostage, then act surprised and horrified when they blow up the building with the hostages inside? Because that was basically the situation the government faced. They had the opportunity to mitigate the damage and did not do so. Therefore, if the damage was worse than it otherwise would have been, that additional damage is 100% the fault of the government for their inaction.

You're right, but the analogy is off. A terrorist attack is unilaterally a bad thing, having as its objective the harm of people. Even a bloodless hostage crisis has the purpose of threatening harm to people to gain something else. Distributing this information is an act of conscience whose point is to educate and inform without harming anyone. It's not like Wikileaks said "comply with our demands, or we will publish information that could place these informants at risk." They freely offered the government

Oh, no, I didn't intend to imply that in any way. I was merely arguing that a "we don't negotiate with terrorists" policy is utter B.S. in the real world, and using that excuse to justify the government not helping censor the WikiLeaks info is absurd. Arguing that WiiLeaks are terrorists is equally absurd, but that's a separate argument.:-)

If he's legally guilty, then of course he should go to jail. The duration will depend on what he is found guilty of.

But, I don't know whether he has done anything wrong - or anything that SHOULD make him legally guilty. He might have only violated a law which is completely unjust (like many laws that exist). In that case, the law should be amended so that the same action in the future would not make him guilty. Then, he should get a pardon, or retroactive immunity.

of course, it is the duty of any military person to report any and all corruption and illegal activities, it is also illegal for them to obey any and all unlawful orders, which include the obfuscation or concealment of any illegal activities. (yeah, it's right there in the U.C.M.J. if you bother to look, or were in the mandatory class on military law in basic training. It's usually mentioned in the first ten minutes of class.) (another thing hollywood always gets wrong, you don't do everything the higher r

No, the situation is that you have no obligation to obey an unlawful order. It's not illegal in and of itself to obey an unlawful order. This was established through the Nuremberg trials that "I was following orders" is not an acceptable answer for why someone commits an illegal act, but failing to refuse an unlawful order is not itself a crime. This principle is however not written into the UCMJ, it's simply accepted that one has a moral duty to refuse to follow orders to commit an illegal act.

Sending anything to WikiLeaks, which provides information to anyone, is a pretty clear cut case of:* That he knowingly gave intelligence (indirectly) to the enemy.* That he was aware that his action would cause the intel to be published.* That he was aware that the enemy would have access to it.

I believe that there were reports of improperly cleaned information which allowed the Taliban et al. to find informants, which means you can show this to be true as well:* That said intelligence aided the enemy.

Well for one thing, there were no deaths as a result of the leak. So whether or not he did it there were no fatalities as a result. You can be sure that it's the case because the American government was willing to risk the entire cache being leaked without redactions rather than telling Wikileaks what to redact.

In October, the Pentagon concluded that the leak "did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods", and that furthermore "there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak."

There sure seem to be a lot of ACs claiming this every time Manning is mentioned, yet no one ever provides evidence of this. In fact, I seem to recall the Pentagon stating that no one had died due to Manning's leak.

He should get a medal for bravery and be honored for doing the right thing, no matter the cost. I hate to do this, but remember history. There were thousands of folks who went around killing innocent people and invading countries, starting world war, because they refused to do the right thing no matter the cost to themselves.

American soldiers: Protecting you from towel wearing shoeless peasants halfway across the globe while you sleep!

Manning's actions endangered American and allied military personel.

No, hes actions didn't. they _could_ have, but all sources say they didn't. unless you think that because saddam _could_ have had weapons of mass destruction that justifies invading his country. (imagine if China invades America under the same premise.)

Careful with that reasoning. A person/group wanting secrecy proves nothing about the moral fibre of said person/group. I thought we agreed here that the "If you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide" inference was a fallacy?

Strictly playing devil's advocate here, but if someone said that "secrecy (read: privacy) must be strictly limited, or corruption (read: criminal activity) will certainly take root", where would be the fault in his reasoning?

Both have committed similar crimes (within the context of the authority of the day), yet on the other hand saw what they thought to be a great moral wrong, and dealt with it within their own personal means.

"A repentant opportunist saw the light and rebelled against the sadism and vile criminality all around him. "

Without a doubt this is most ignorant statement I've read on Slashdot in a while. If you can't see the difference between defying the Nazis at the cost of your own life, and giving a bunch of electronic documents to some guy in a cheap suit so you can make a name for yourself, you need your head checked. This ignorance of history comparing Nazis to the American government not interesting or true.

I see him as more of a Mordechai Vanunu [wikipedia.org]. Both were given legitimate access to secret information about their country's military and then leaked that information. Both acted out of conscience - Manning believed that what he saw were war crimes being covered up - Vanunu believed that the people of the world had a right to know that Israel was secretly building weapons of mass destruction. Neither was motivated by money or a desire to betray their country - the motivation was in observing acts that they believed to be morally wrong, and the crime was in seeking to inform the general public about those acts. Vanunu spent 18 years in prison, with more than 11 in solitary confinement... we will have to wait and see what happens to Manning.

He didn't just leak diplomatic cables. This Wired article [wired.com] states that Manning leaked documents because of his moral concerns and wanting to "do the right thing". Quotes:

He claimed to have been rummaging through classified military and government networks for more than a year and said that the networks contained “incredible things, awful things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC.”

“He wanted to do the right thing,” says 20-year-old Tyler Watkins. “That was something I think he was struggling with.”

“He would message me, Are people talking about it? Are the media saying anything?” Watkins said. “That was one of his major concerns, that once he had done this, was it really going to make a difference? He didn’t want to do this just to cause a stir. He wanted people held accountable and wanted to see this didn’t happen again.”

The second video he claimed to have leaked shows a May 2009 air strike near Garani village in Afghanistan that the local government says killed nearly 100 civilians, most of them children. The Pentagon released a report about the incident last year, but backed down from a plan to show video of the attack to reporters.

Anonymous as modded. It is very noticeable in this discussion how many ACs there are saying Manning caused people's deaths or generally calling for the death penalty. Yet to see a single citation on damage done. Just whispers and rumours, dark voices from the shadows that wikileaks shone a light into. Scum.

It is unclear if the poll is asking what we think he deserves, or what we think he will get. What he did was pretty darn close to Treason legally, so it's just not conceivable that he will get away with just a slap on the wrist.

To be honest I don't really get the question. I sympathise with Manning. I think he did the right thing, but at the same time the law and penalties are probably about right, and anyway, what I think will have no impact on the number of years he gets.

What I think Manning did was marvellous, heroic, of great benefit to society and noble. I voted life, as I don't believe in the death penalty. He was military personnel, he knew what he was getting into. Anything less than life for treason would be idiotic in a military court. If he were civillian, it would be a different story. I'm still proud of what he did, but he won't be free. I should add I think he's being held inhumanely, and perhaps should be freed on those grounds.

Yes, I'm saying military service carries with it an obedience to the state as the ultimate contract, and if that contract is broken the harshest penalties must apply. Anything else would create a weak and ineffectual military force, and there would be no more state. What he did to break that contract was moral in one respect yet immoral in his service to the state. Nobody forced him into that contract, but once it's taken and oaths are sworn you must uphold those oaths or face the consequence. There is no o

In general IMO the man did the right thing, but there should still be a small penalty involved so just anyone doesn't think about releasing all the stuff that passes through their control; if you're willing to be a hero, you should be willing to face the music if you really think it's worth it.

Isn't it enough that he's already being subjected to harrassment amounting to torture, without even having been convicted? He should be discharged immediately and his torturers, and the people who authorised them, should replace him in the dock.

First, as others have mentioned, the question of aid to the enemy or compromising the security of American soldiers is handily summarized by the Pentagon:

> In October, the Pentagon concluded that the leak "did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods", and that furthermore "there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak."

Which leaves us with his actions as a whistleblower. To me, the standard that should be observed is simple: Is it rea

I hate to say it, but if he's convicted, the punishment will be death. He knowingly and willfully released classified information. It's made clear to everyone with a clearance that by doing this they could face penalties up to and including death. You can debate the merits of the death penalty all you want, but as an enlisted member of the US Army with an active clearance, he knew what he was doing and he knew or should have known of the possible penalty.

That only means that the death penalty is an option, in case of a treason conviction (think: plotting to assassinate the president on behalf of a foreign power). John Walker Lind got 20 years for actually joining the Taliban. Manning will likely get a similar sentence. In both cases, pretty harsh sentences for actions that didn't cause more harm than some embarrassment, but it's the thought that counts.

Difference being that Lind is a civilian. Manning is a volunteer in the armed services. He took an extra oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The only question is if he defended it from a domestic threat (the U.S. Gov't) or whether he committed straight treason. If he'd been a civilian, I'd say time served and thanks for exposing a security flaw. As a member of the service, he was entrusted to keep the secrets which he revealed. It's not clear cut, but if he really thought that i

Sure, but on the other hand, the information he released wasn't all that sensitive. Sure, it was classified, but of a category that hundreds of thousands of only lightly screened people were apparently cleared for. I don't think he'll hang this boy for it, but he probably won't be a boy anymore when he gets out of jail.

I wonder why he bothered to risk his life and freedom to release this dump, that turned out to contain hardly anything interesting. Proof of torture, war crimes, betrayal of allies, things li

In both cases, pretty harsh sentences for actions that didn't cause more harm than some embarrassment, but it's the thought that counts.

I'm very confused how you see joining Al-Qaeda, attending lectures by Osama Bin Laden, a wanted terrorist, continuing to fight for a force that was trying to kill American soldiers in a combat theater, and then being captured and remaining silent about a prison uprising that would kill American personnel is "[less] harm then embarrassment". Seems to me 20 years is getting off pretty light for that.

Article I, Section 8, which provides that "The Congress shall have Power . . . To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces", seems particularly relevant. Perhaps that legally outweighs some other Constitutional clauses in military situations.

Indeed, the UCMJ has been enacted like other Federal law, simply with limits upon its jurisdiction.

I thought that too, but after looking through the charges and doing some research, he is charged with violating article 104 of the UCMJ, Aiding the Enemy, which carries a maximum possible punishment of death.

Just like in China when dissidents disappear, they should just man up and accept the consequences, they knew what was coming. We shouldn't complain or wish it were some other way, lest it happen to us too.

Do you have any actual evidence of that? At any rate, wouldn't that be the responsibility of the US Federal government for refusing to ask for redactions?

I take it that you've forgotten that Wikileaks asked the US for guidance on what redactions to make and that the American government refused to cooperate with that, insisting that it was all or nothing.

We won't in this case. Not because we don't trust the AC, but because know the US army already lied about this and then had to admit it was untrue. Which is a real shame 'cos this is one of the key questions to settle whether Wikileaks was irresponsible or not.

I've only seen one official statement on this matter, and that was the Pentagon stating that no lives had been lost as a result of the leaks. Now, possibly you have a better source, but unless they're willing to produce that evidence in court then it shouldn't make a difference.

The killing, and subsequent cover up, of the Reuters reporters. That does it for me!

The US armed forces should hang their heads in shame for that alone, and for exposing that he should be released, and though technically he may be 'guilty' the time and atrocious treatment served so far should be enough (actually, too much!).

Accidents happen, but the way reasonable humans behave afterwards is to 'fess up to the accident to allow everyone to learn by your mistakes so it is hopefully less likely to happen again. You DON'T deny it happened. You don't say there's no footage of the incident when Reuters comes asking about it. You don't try and suppress the information like a bunch of cowards!
Yes... I said it... bloody cowards!
You're 'brave' enough to shoot the crap out of a bunch of people from your fucking heavily armed helicopter gunship whilst laughing about it, but don't have the balls to stand up for what is right and insist that ALL the wounded are medevac'd to the US medical facilities immediately. No, you cravenly slink off with your tail between your legs and leave the wounded to be picked up however much later by the local police and taken to some local hell-hole hospital. Honestly, you disgust me!
YOU should have contacted Reuters and told them you just killed two of their reporters!

If you're not accountable for your actions then you are the worst kind of school bully. Always the biggest kid in the playground, but yellow to the core!

Apologies to all those brave men and women in the forces to whom this doesn't apply (and I believe, I hope, that is the majority), but YOU should be as appalled by this as I am. This is your armed forces. This is YOUR country. Do you honestly want your government doing things like this? If you do then you're no better than they are... and karma be damned!

The guy shouting "Death to America" right in front of a military convoy deserved that broken nose.

One of the great things about America is that you have the right to say whatever you want about the government without fear that a soldier will punch you in the face. It's a shame that people like you don't see the good in that, and would deny citizens of other countries the same right.

Nope. I was against the U.S. entering Afghanistan, and even more strongly against the U.S. going into Iraq.

I do, however, believe that the U.S. is a legally U.N.-sanctioned force in both theaters, and that the U.S. soldiers therefore have a right to protect themselves from people who make potentially threatening statements in their presence.

"I do, however, believe that the U.S. is a legally U.N.-sanctioned force in both theaters"

And so you belive it wrong. But I was wrong too, and you aren't using the Democracy excuse for going there. Just keep in mind that it is not really for protection if they can wait until the car pass at the protester to hit him.

Not necessarily wrong, just incredibly unwise. Every time the U.S. has intervened in that region of the world, the result has been pretty much universally harmful, both to the stability of the region and to U.S. foreign policy interests.

One of the great things about America is that you have the right to say whatever you want about the government without fear that a soldier will punch you in the face.

Hah. Try walking up to a soldier in the U.S. and shouting "Death to America" or "All soldiers must die" and tell me how that works out for you. Verbal assault is verbal assault, and the person on the other end has a right to self defense once you cross that line, whether you're in the U.S. or in a foreign land.

Verbal assault is verbal assault, and the person on the other end has a right to self defense

No. There are many words that might offend a person, but hearing those words does not give them the right to respond with physical violence.
You do realise that you are arguing that Islamists, and other religious fundamentalists, are right to use violence in response to criticism of their religion? That offensive words justify violence in retaliation?

No, I'm not arguing that at all. I'm arguing that if I physically walk up to a Muslim and angrily shout that all Muslims should be killed, that person is well within his rights to punch me. It's more than just "criticism" when those words advocate violence.

Further, saying that punching somebody is justified is a very, very far cry from arguing that murder is justified, that terrorist bombings are justified, etc. We'd all be a lot better off as a society if we weren't so quick to close off the avenues to

If Manning specifically leaked only info that exposed crimes and/or harmful lies, I would support his immediate freedom and commend him for his bravery. Given that is not the case, that he leaked vast amounts of info, I have to agree that he should be held to whatever oaths he made as a serviceman. Sure, given his motive (to expose the truth rather than to aid enemies), any penalty should only go so far, but I don't see why he would deserve to walk clean on this. That said, he doesn't deserve to be treated

A government doen't need to keep secrets in my imaginary world, in fact all secrets are bad, even ones my own government keeps in order to gain an upper hand in global politics.

any government that is required to keep secret communications to other countries probably doesn't have the moral authority to assert its will into those regions. If you're not transparent about what you're doing, no one will trust you. during war time, i totally understand the requirement for secrecy, but officially America isn't in any wars.

A government doen't need to keep secrets in my imaginary world, in fact all secrets are bad, even ones my own government keeps in order to gain an upper hand in global politics.

any government that is required to keep secret communications to other countries probably doesn't have the moral authority to assert its will into those regions. If you're not transparent about what you're doing, no one will trust you. during war time, i totally understand the requirement for secrecy, but officially America isn't in any wars.

Never had a private meaningful conversation with a friend or neighbor about a serious topic that wouldn't have been as frank, open and productive if the entire neighborhood was sitting in the room listening in? When did lack of privacy equate to morality?

The Star Wars Holiday Special gets a lot of attention, but around the same time there was Star Wars Roller Disco, hosted by the Gibb brothers. Original SWRD t-shirts still sell for hundreds on eBay. This TV (IIRC on ABC) show featured a different Star Wars actor, in character, as guest each week. The Anthony Daniels episode really explored the artistic depths that is Star Wars.